Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 50

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

GMO conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a lot of sources attesting to the existence of GMO conspiracy theories that were removed from the article in violation of

, but first I wanted to get some eyes on his contributions and on the pages he is problematically contributing to.

Thanks,

jps (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I was watching Tsavage's talk page due to a recent discussion so noticed the link here. I am not very familiar with the linked conspiracy article, but am an involved editor in GMO so have encountered Tsavage at other pages. I disagree with them on a few points, in particular a comment they made about

WP:weight and their charactisation of an AAAS source[1]. However, we have worked well together on other related articles (see User talk:Tsavage#Table of GMO's for an example) and overall I think they are a net positive to the GMO debate. AIRcorn (talk)

19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The weight comment was at Talk:Genetically modified food and I cannot easily find the dif, but will look harder if it becomes necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I come here from pretty much the same prior experience as Aircorn, and I pretty much agree with what Aircorn just said. I'll admit to finding some of Tsavage's ideas strange at times, or at least that I sometimes disagree, but I'm not seeing disruption. I also do not think that this is the right place to discuss whether or not to go to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss whether to go to AE or not. There is no other venue for doing this that will elicit outside opinion, and I found your opinion and Aircorn's to be useful. My god, this place is turing into a

WP:BURO nightmare. jps (talk

) 01:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: As this is a behavioral comment about me, it seems relevant that excerpts from this article are nominated for "Did you know", by the article's originator (I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc aka jps), and my placement of the POV tag and comment today apparently threatens to derail that nomination, and are being argued against there by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/jps. (I was unaware of the nomination, and discovered it by ping, as I was mentioned in the DYK discussion.) --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Describing someone as a 'WP:FRINGE-promoter of dubious sourcing standards' should not be done without difs, as it could reasonably read as a personal attack. Dialectric (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh, their contributions are easy for you to click on above. You can decide whether you think my analysis is correct or not. This is not an arbcom tribunal. This is a discussion about how to deal with fringe theories and sometimes that involved trying to figure out what the agenda of editors actually is. jps (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits removing Cancer Research UK as unreliable, etc. May need eyes.

) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I just weighed in at the talk page and watched the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

See [2]. More eyes needed for this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of. Added it to my watchlist. Kleuske (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS and the main SS article, see [3] could use more eyes. Problem is SS theories/nomenclature/pseudoscientific bullhockey being presented in Wikipedia's voice, which I guess ain't a good thing is it? Being fixed in the "ideology" article but not yet addressed in the main SS article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There's little reason a respected expert would need to vanity publish something mainstream, and it's even less likely that we would need to resort to a journal like that to cite something that's appropriate for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Left remarks there to that effect. Geogene (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Coding (therapy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I trimmed out some text sourced to an OMICS Group journal, but even before that it was not obvious if this is notable bollocks. Please review and give it some thought. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've heard of this before (being a skeptic who loves to read, that's my heuristic for notability, and it's been pretty accurate so far). To be honest, I'm not sure it's completely bollocks, either. It's just a specific application of operant conditioning with a heavy emphasis on the power of the placebo effect. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge candidate? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I say yes. The article is a stub and I think that while it's notable enough for inclusion here, I'm not sure it's a... big? enough subject for its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In List of oldest church buildings three Indian churches allegedly built in the 1st century were added. One of them already has an article where the construction date is cited to an (off-line) book; the two others even do not have articles (isn't it strange that the two of the three oldest churches in the world do not have articles?) but I assume these will be forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is simple confusion between the (traditional) date of founding a congregation and the date of construction of a church building. Both are possible senses of the word "church" but this list is meant to be about church buildings. --Amble (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remove them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like in part a coatrack for "Polarity Therapy", a variety of

) 12:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why someone would add a coatrack from another article. There is new discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Stone (2nd nomination). QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it may very well be bollocks, that doesn't mean the article subject isn't notable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's irrelevant as nobody has mentioned notability.

talk

) 19:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you want to delete an article on a notable subject. Yay Wikipedia. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

An IP user is attempting to edit war with me. IP user

) 20:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the IP states that being a best selling author makes her notable, but it does not. Just do a search of talk and wikispace for "best selling author" and be prepared to be amazed at the vitriolic, vicious evisceration of such claims. The tl:dr version is that best selling lists are easily manipulated by publishers and even authors, and as such are basically useless for establishing notability on their own. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

How to properly qualify a Clayton College PhD?

Do we have some general consensus on this? I changed "In 2002 she earned a PhD in Holistic Nutrition from

) 16:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say "unaccredited" rather than "diploma mill". I have no doubt that Clayton College was a diploma mill, but it's not clear that she knew it was a diploma mill necessarily. jps (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Surely anyone who claims to have a doctorate would be aware that some doctorates (i.e. the legitimate ones) require several years to obtain. I am not sure that Clayton College was a diploma mill in the strict sense: an organization that exchanges credentials for money without even a veil of attempting to educate. Clayton probably awarded doctorates to students who had completed less actual work than, say, an A-level or AP secondary school course. But I favor "unaccredited" because it evidently pretended to be teaching something.

I added the fact that Clayton provided no clinical training. Normally, clinical training -- supervised interactions with patients -- is absolutely necessary for ethical practice of health-related professions. Basically she was awarded the ability to tell people "in a doctor's voice" that they should take X supplement, but no one ever checked to make sure she knew not to give a huge dose of homeopathic caffeine to someone with a cold, or Vitamin C to someone with insomnia. Roches (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Diploma mill sounds informal. But I do think it should be noted that the college is unaccredited. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

May need reviewing Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a perceived sensitivity to magnetism that has no basis in scientific research. The article has been tagged "needs more medical references.") I disagree. The article should explain the theory and who believes it and explain that it is not accepted in reliable sources. If it has no acceptance, no more medical references are required. TFD (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with The Four Deuces except that I believe at least one MEDRS source showing that there's nothing to it is needed (as this is a medical claim, and explains why it has no real acceptance in the medical community). I know they exist.

Note that I believe it needs to be stressed in the article that this is not a real medical condition. WP is not here to cater to hypochondriacs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Gulf Breeze UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Strikes me as not being particularly article worthy. What do you think?

jps (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done any research to see if it passes

WP:GNG, but it passes by my usual rule of thumb (me being a skeptic who loves to read, if I've heard of it before, it probably deserves an article). Just bear in mind, this is a heuristic and not a full on endorsement. If I get the chance, I'll look into it further. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

14:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a well-documented hoax, and a rare instance where we have independent reliable sources clearly saying so. IMO, this is a better target for much-needed rework. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Kelly-Hopkinsville case is one I've heard of independent of Wikipedia. :) jps (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a request by an editor that their topic-ban be lifted for alt-med topics at ANI. Regardless of opinion on the editor, we could use thoughts from editors who've dealt alt-med topics on the outlook of lifting this particular ban.

) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

just noticed this, read the request and comments, and think the right result will be forthcoming, without any need for my 2p. Roxy the dog™ woof 18:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic Biophysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New chiropractic-related page. I'm not sure if it is notable. I can't find many sources on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected to

talk

) 03:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The MEDRS violations have been restored along with non-independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics has started since the redirect was reverted. jps (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Scrambler therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got an IP editor bigging this up off the back of unreliable sources. Would be good if fringe-savvy editors watchlisted it.

) 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SPA revising this and similar articles, recently pushing tinfoil hattery about "rough government agents" [5]. Eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The version you reverted most recently seems to go into a bit of detail on the conspiracy theory. Aside from a few problem sentences (the bit about the impasse is just bollocks), that version seems the better one. I'm curious as to why? Do you see the extra conspiracy theory information as lending credence to the conspiracy theory? If so, wouldn't a minor re-write fix that? I'm happy to help, I just want to make sure I understand your position. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from the page. I'm tired of

persistent and disruptive SPAs lobbying to get the article to treat psychiatrically-validated mental illness and a secret campaign of microwave-induced mind torture as equally valid explanations. - LuckyLouie (talk

) 02:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of names of people he supposedly influenced or was influenced by, but not a lot of sources. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of him. Also, that image is not a passport photo, despite what the caption says. Even in the 40's, they required a portrait view with eye wear removed, not this kind of dramatic 3/4 glamour shot. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

He has a big GScholar footprint; I suspect the the issue is just that the article is under-cited, perhaps because the matters at hand aren't very important to Anglo-American interests. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

He's kind of the Ayn Rand of occultism (although they would have considered themselves mortal enemies because one wrote about economics and the other magic, their fans tends to occupy the same niche in their respective circles). I would agree that the article needs more sourcing, but it's got almost a hundred citations right now. Pruning unsourced or improperly sourced material is probably be more prudent. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In the thread Past Life Regression Article, there is a user whose handle is the name of the author of some material about the subject attempting to make the case that the article in question should include claims that Reincarnation is a real phenomenon. So far, I'm the only one arguing against him (others have contributed their thoughts on policy, sometimes agreeing with or disagreeing with me). If anyone else could help explain why we can't do this, it'd be appreciated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page for this article appears to be locked against editing by unregistered users - preventing me from drawing attention to the latest development, which casts serious doubts regarding claimed investment by Industrial Heat LCC in the device. See this article [6] and the statement from IH themselves [7] As it currently stands, the article (wisely) says nothing about IH's involvement anyway, but previous versions included such material, and there seems to be recent discussion on possibly restoring it. Accordingly it would seem wise to at least note on the talk page that as per every previous claimed 'investor' in the E-Cat, nothing has come of the venture beyond the usual flim-flam - the NET article possibly doesn't meet WP:RS, but the IH statement is certainly sufficient to invalidate earlier claims about the level of their involvement. It is probably too much to hope that the ever-optimistic promoters of this device on Wikipedia will finally get the point and find something a bit more credible to plug instead, but at least you can draw a line under this latest episode. Accordingly I would appreciate it if someone could copy this to the article talk page, and/or raise the matter there themselves. Thanks. 86.163.197.112 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it normal/allowed for the talkpage to be locked? I never heard of that. PermStrump(talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NM I read the page on sanctions. Apparently it's a thing. I added it to my watchlist, but I don't know when I'll have time to really look into it as I never heard of it before. PermStrump(talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is perfectly cromulent when an article talk page is being disrupted by cranks and hucksters. New Energy Times is not a

WP:RS, though - it's a cold fusionist fanzine. I posted a note to the talk page. Guy (Help!

) 22:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel bad for cold fusioneers. This situation is so transparently corrupt to outsiders looking in that it can't help but cast doubt on the entire community of cold fusion. I gather that Krivit's campaign against Rossi is motivated largely by this fear (as well correctly smelling the rat where it is, but I don't understand why Krivit can't smell it in the Kimmel Institute or in the SPAWAR claims either...). Rossi's machinations represent a real existential threat to those who have been patiently over the course of 25 years trying to convince the world that they balked too soon at Pons and Fleischmann type claims. jps (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution

Of possible interest to board watchers.

jps (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me or do these concepts all sound like the same thing?

And these techniques...

Maybe some of them don't belong on the list. It's hard to tell. But what does one do about such a large number of articles on essentially the same thing? PermStrump(talk) 05:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that

Alexander technique is used by singers (standing up straight and relaxing the right muscles produces a good tone). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 22:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cryonics

More eyes welcomed on Cryonics and Talk:Cryonics (again) - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Much nutjubbery there. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has made serious plans to have their head frozen after death, what specific piece of nutjobbery is the problem? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this the 'open letter' rubbish? Not really nutjobbery but then its also over-exaggerating/misleading the purpose of said letter. Cryonics is a legitimate field of science which will (hopefully) one day have great applications in medicine. In some areas research has already had practical applications. The problem seems to be that the material is attempting to be used to support/answer the question 'Can I be frozen and brought back to life?' when really its only valid to support/answer 'Is this a real scientific field as opposed to quackery?'. Which are two very different things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• 5:2 diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

Another in the long-running series of

talk

) 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

The Star of Bethlehem page attracts a lot of fringe theories, with lots of people eager to promote their own theories, despite the widespread scholarly assumption that the star is a literary construct.

I have been engaged with an editor who has one particular fringe view: that the birth of king Herod was four years later than generally accepted. This may seem a trivial point but it is of great importance to some fundamentalist Christians who are bothered by the fact that the Gospel of Luke says the birth of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod and at the time of the census - which took place ten years after Herod died. This is an old chestnut, and many elaborate theories have been put forward in the past to explain away the problem. Modern scholars have given up on this, dismissing such arguments as "exegetical acrobatics" (Geza Vermes).

The editor, Al Leluia81, has been trying to promote his own personal view on the Star of Bethlehem page. Section Star_of_Bethlehem#Relating_the_star_historically_to_Jesus.27_birth

Not only are his edits skewed towards equal treatment of this fringe view, he appears to be editing in bad faith. He has removed critical edits, claiming they are "promotional"; he has implied three bible versions promote a particular dubious version of the biblical text, when they actually include them only as possible aternatives; he has used poor quality, non- academic sources and demands they be given equal treatment to established mainstream scholarly sources; and he has accused me of harassment for calling him out for this.

An example of this is an edit based on poor sources and an amateur's error. I explained why this was wrong:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_of_Bethlehem#Removal_of_Beyer_text It is a very clear and detailed explanation. This error has no support in modern Josehus scholarship. Anyone familiar with the issue would know this. Yet the editor simply reverted the text with a series of poor quality sources.

--Rbreen (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the "Relating the star historically to Jesus' birth" section, I don't see what it's doing there, since it is almost entirely devoted to the messy business of working out the date of Herod's death and doesn't mention the star at all. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe, and just whacked that entire subsection in a drive-by edit. I'm sure it'll be back very soon in some form, but I didn't see the need to drag the reader through a quagmire of other controversies that really don't seem to have a bearing on the subject. Hard to see how it can help resolve anything about Biblical chronology if probably didn't happen. Geogene (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Using Herod's Death To Determine Jesus Birth stuff would be better suited at an article like

Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth (currently in AfD but seems to have a chance of survival). - LuckyLouie (talk

) 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh

Not really a fringe theory but more of a case of potential undue weight on certain topics/viewpoints, so related. Seeking outside opinion/request for comment on talk page of Yahweh. -KaJunl (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This user is simply not accustomed to how academics talk of religion. I answered the following at Talk:Yahweh:

• Oppose: Judaism wasn't born full-fledged, as Athena from the head of Zeus. Per
  WP:CENSOR the history of Judaism in general and of this god in particular. Tgeorgescu (talk
  ) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that he quickly reads five recent Bible scholarship books published by Oxford University Press in order to understand how academics talk about the Bible and its history. The basics of the Yahweh question are outlined in A History of God, a really good book for beginners. I suggest he should read it first. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP considers the

WP:UNDUE

because he never got an university education as far as religion studies are concerned and it is understandable that people who never had such chance consider weird what academics have to say about the gods of the Bible.

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4.

)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While Wikipedia nowhere requires us to be experts in order to write articles, a basic understanding of the field you're editing in

WP:RANDY is of application. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 01:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The spectre that haunts this field isn't Randy; it's

Oolon Colluphid. There are, after all, even when you discount the fundagelicals as hopelessly backward, a lot more seminaries than those in the mainline which are to some greater or lesser extent apostate. The Germanic hist-crit school has spent a century in the pretense that it's the only way of looking at things once you've thrown off the shackles of naive religious credulity or or dogmatic literalism, but there are, after all a lot more Catholic seminaries, and even in the mainline, Rudolf Bultmann

isn't everyone's oracle.

If you poke around you can find criticism of Ehrman's latest book, which is pretty much like the criticism of the one before that. From what I can tell a lot of the field does not accept his focus on textual inconsistencies. It's hard to say, without better tools and more time than I have at the moment, what the overall opinion is, because things tend to be drowned out by the anti-religious cheering squad (a whole different set of Randys, but Randys they are). In that wise it is no surprise to me that Jesus, Interrupted is published by HarperCollins, because they push that sort of thing (they've been the publisher for most of Spong's books, for example). Trying to find scholarly reviews of A History of God has proven to be quite difficult, but I have no doubt that Armstrong's thesis is to some large degree disputed; yet we seem to be relying on it in our article as a definitive source.

The root problem is that, once you get past the objective facts of multiple text versions and the data of textual analysis, everything else is speculative. Sure, the

synoptic problem), but this one is pretty bad. Mangoe (talk

) 16:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that A History of God was a particularly good scholarly work, only that it serves as a good introduction for people who did not read any scholarship about Yahweh. Those who disagree with Ehrman mostly don't disagree with his facts, they disagree with his pedagogy (focus on textual inconsistencies). I mean, everybody knows the textual inconsistencies are there, but many still find the Bible theologically reliable. The point of the historical-critical research is not that the Bible would be theologically unreliable (remember they discuss falsifiable historical statements, not what believers should believe as a matter of true faith). Its point is that Mark's theology is different from Matthew's theology, different from Luke's theology, different from Paul's theology, etc. This point has to be proven by textual inconsistencies, not that the Bible would be bunk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As Peter Enns says at [8], the critical-historical method is not the only game in town, but it is pedagogically seen the game every Bible scholar learns to play (in secular universities) before learning other games. If you take time to follow the apologetic criticism of Ehrman at [9], you will see that James White (theologian) states that any student attending a secular US university will be confronted during its classes with arguments similar to those made by Ehrman and that it is extremely rare to catch Ehrman stating an untrue fact about the Bible and/or the history of Christianity. So, this is a confirmation of Ehrman's position in respect to academic consensus from a harsh critic of him. Of course, White criticizes Ehrman for theological reasons: he does not like what he sees as Ehrman's theology, even if Ehrman claims that he is a historian, not a theologian. Further, there was a time, not very long ago, when historical critics did not care much for archaeology and archaeologists did not care much for historical criticism. Now they see that they need each other. The point is: the Yahweh articles builds from historical criticism as well as from archaeology, so just saying that historical criticism is not the only game in town won't change everything it contains, since that also relies upon archaeology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloom, Allan (1987). "The Student and the University". The Closing of the American Mind (Pbk ed.). New York: SIMON & SCHUSTER PAPERBACKS. pp. 374–375.

)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

)

Is an article appropriate? It seems to have made something of a legal splash, so that might make it notable.

jps (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The legal bash is not about the technique. I removed the sources that failed RS and MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Look who is editing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack text about the legal bash and unreliable sources were restored. If all the coatrack and unreliable sources were deleted the article would not be notable IMO. This is the clean version. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, let's try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique. jps (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is pretty problematic, because, when you get into the meat of it, you find that by and large the scholarly world rejects that such influences exist outside some syncretism (maybe) in Nestorian India, and that indeed it seems more likely that whatever influences there are run the other direction. At least it doesn't mention Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Any ideas about fixing up the lead? Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the sources for the more remarkable claims were overtly religious material, and/or were published by a press that seems pretty heavy into astrology and New Age spiritualism. I removed those that I saw and replaced with CN tags. The article doesn't seem to be able to mention any concrete examples of Buddhism directly influencing Christianity, instead it mostly gives examples of Greco-Romans being vaguely aware that Buddhism exists. If anybody's going to the library soon, they might want to verify that the claim about Dharmic wheels being found in Egypt is actually in the source given. Geogene (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal, see also Talk:Sorcha Faal. Doesn't appear to have improved in notability since the last AFD, with all the problems noted there and new ones added - but someone else can nominate it this time - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I came across this userpage while checking and fixing ref errors. I would like an opinion if this is fringe or not. The main header is "A FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE OF METABOLICALLY GENERATED FREE RADICALS AS THE FOUNDATION OF HOMEOSTASIS". A Google search revealed part of it on [10]. --Auric talk 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbobmelamede. jps (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Auric talk 15:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

For those of you who ruled the theory fringe and stopped reading after a couple sentences, you missed out. It turns out

cannabinoids are the Fountain of Youth. Speedy deletion for copyvio was the right course of action. Roches (talk

) 22:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh. I noticed that too. I wish. Carl Sagan would probably still be alive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of editors over there, both of whom have stated their conviction that the argument from authority is always a fallacy trying to push an example and some bad sources into the article which supports their view. The specific example they're trying to push is the belief in the early 20th century that humans had 48 chromosomes, because the most popular count of 48 came from a highly respected cytologist (

22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how many times this has to be answered. No one's trying to make the page say that, that's a settled issue. No one's trying to imply that they're always fallacious with the example. The matter of this example is split somewhat evenly on the Talk at 3 vs. 5, and the discussion at the RSN has turned out mostly favorable towards citing scientists when it comes to logical fallacies in science. If anything, trying to delete psychology textbooks that're being cited for facts about how psychology relates to a logical fallacy, and insisting that we cannot cite scientific sources in the article, would be what falls under being a fringe theory.

And if you want to talk about "ignoring arguments to the contrary", what about how you dismissed my detailed reply to your criticism of a source with nothing but a personal insult and then said that you would no longer speak to me. You might not need to come here misrepresenting the issue if you didn't reply to analysis with insult and then refuse to speak to people. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

)

Is an article appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Article is appropriate, I did a quick pubmed search and found 5 peer reviewed articles. Also this is not a chiropractor specific modality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17549185 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22997469

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23118072 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22131563 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589706 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15855909. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 02:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not all the sources you presented are reviews and some are written by the trade. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because a journal is written by the trade does not make it less reliable. Peer reviewed journals written by professional associations that follow standard peer review processes are still reliable. Regardless I only spent 2 minutes on this. There is not doubt that 1) the topic is notable and 2) it is not specific to chiropractors. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 03:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to use independent sources and reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

While that is your preference peer reviewed research on pubmed is inherently reliable. User:Onthost _{(T C)} 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Sock comments stricken. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We should use reviews. Peer reviewed research does not equal reliability. See

WP:MEDINDY for using independent sources. QuackGuru (talk

) 22:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Since it is not specifically about chiropractic I have moved the thread. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Earth Similarity Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been going through today cleaning up a lot of fringe material related to this article as can be seen in this edit. There seems to be a cottage industry of people who are trying to apply this index everywhere they possibly can which is, as far as I can tell, the curated and uncited invention of a single person with the only mention in one

properly would be helpful.

Related to this are the following AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets

as well as a few templates at

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 1

Help contextualizing this issue would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I could use some more eyes from outsiders. jps (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fire needle acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amazingly, passed AfD. There is now resistance to using decent sources (Cochrane) and having a pseudoscience category. Could use eyes.

) 15:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That does not remove it from notability. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the opening sentence over-attribute the mainstream view, with too many qualifiers? It seems odd, at the least, to write:

“

Psychic surgery is a means of committing what most physicians in traditional medicine believe to be a pseudoscientific medical fraud using a possible conjuring trick[...]

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

After a closer look I agree that the wording was problematic. I see you have fixed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Does it really need the "Infobox paranormal term"? That thing seems to be a leftover POV workaround from when someone was going around trying to define things according to a paranormal dictionary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In related news Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Template:Infobox_paranormal_term. jps (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Got some activity at

) 11:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Much in need of more peer reviewed science links not personal opinions from blogs.Timpicerilo (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Now got criticism from Science-Based Medicine being removed by a suspiciously fresh a/c.

talk

) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And now an IP is removing criticism ...

talk

) 09:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disturbingly little criticism, agreed... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't fringe per se but it touches on a lot of the kinds of problems we deal with in research. It's a statistical appearance that people are more likely to die within a few days of their birthday (and there appear to be Christmas and Passover effects as well)— except that some studies show it and some don't. From the one study I could readily see into the effect is very small. Someone who is more familiar with dealing with this sort of research than I am could help sort this out. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Needs eyes. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is full of Scientology fringe and all sorts of other fringe. I've been trying to work on it, but it's a beast, so I could use help if anyone has time. It doesn't look like anyone is necessarily paying attention to my edits... at least not yet. PermStrump(talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's a controversy article, so let me rephrase... There's a lot of fringe views that need to be revised per NPOV and WEIGHT, but I guess some of them belong with the right context. Some of it is just ridiculous (e.g.

Hunter vs. farmer hypothesis -- an article I'll have to take a look at later). PermStrump(talk)

18:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It does look like there is a soft pushing of views and opinions that are outside of mainstream science and medicine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "soft" before I posted this. :) I tried to take out the obvious stuff, but I still need to go back and it's really long. I don't even know what the second half says yet. PermStrump(talk) 03:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on deleting fringe science here as well, my main problem is that the "Financial Conflicts of Intrest", Which pushes fringe science, is pretty cleverly worded. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Need more eyes in

) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't my expertise, but I'll see what I can do. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Revitalizer created a new page called Activated phenolics, a concept that falls outside current thinking about the physiological fate of ingested polyphenols ("phenolics"). Although research is extensive on potential physiological and anti-disease effects of polyphenols, there exists no in vivo evidence that they survive metabolism and extensive rapid excretion to play any significant role in the body, let alone being "activated" (no definition for how this occurs). In my opinion, this content is not worthy of article status.

theory certainly on the fringe of current science. Possibly, this is a student science project -- the user is a new contributor to Wikipedia as of Feb 2016.

I provided feedback on the user's Talk page, then transferred the discussion to the Talk page of Activated phenolics. --Zefr (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Zefr mentioned no affiliation with any reputable scientific institution nor substantiated expertise in this topic. I suggest if Zefr indeed believes that those "old" and "weak" studies are wrong, please go to the journals which published those studies and scientifically criticise it. Zefr implied that this is a possible student science project is not only offensive but unfounded. So is the comment of me being a new contributor, suggesting that just because Zefr has been a contributor longer than I have somehow gives Zefr more authority? Revitalizer (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not finding use of the term "activated phenolics" in sources. This looks like some terminology that Revitalizer invented. Beyond the definition, the article loses coherence and becomes a personal essay about "superfoods". I recommend deleting the article, per

WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Geogene (talk

) 03:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I patrolled the page when it was first created; unfortunately, I didn't have the scientific to feel comfortable nominating it for deletion, so I added {{reflist}}, added a few cleanup tags, and moved on. I believe that if there's the possibility of false medical information being on Wikipedia, it needs to be removed or rephrased. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a good half the page full of fringe science, Problem is revitalizer is really pushing the validity of the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a AfD page, but I messed up, need someone to fix it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Provided the deletion template. --Zefr (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Linda Moulton Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of a fringe author who'd rather be known as an "investigative reporter" overloaded with excessive puffery. I gave it a recent cleanup (BEFORE and AFTER) but eyes appreciated as Howe fans frequently attempt to revert it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On it, and will continue to track page.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think adding snarky comments [12] to the article text is a good thing. Will you revert it? Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appear to be two

). --Krelnik (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted most of the fringe science material. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I dropped a friendly note on one of the talk pages. It might be a stretch but I will give the benefit of the doubt and AGF for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! --Krelnik (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

SPA currently stripping criticism from the article again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Biodynamic agriculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some disagreements here about sourcing and weight after a burst of activity from a newish

) 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't ever explain why you used edit warring (three reverts) to remove material in the Effectiveness section that was sourced to a research review and to three studies in scholarly journals related to agriculture. It's easy to get the impression that you didn't closely review the material and that you were reflexively reverting. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's my impression as well.

talk

) 15:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears editors would rather focus on others than address the problems. More eyes needed. --

) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am having an edit skirmish with a user who insists that the page Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "Schools of thought" category of the Anarchism sidebar; I do not. This is a long-running dispute which needs to be resolved. I am posting about this on this noticeboard because I argue that Anarcho-capitalism 1) exists pretty much only on the Internet and in theoretical journals and think-tanks whereas the other Anarchist schools of thought (with some exception; in Template talk:Anarchism sidebar I mention several other pages which probably also do not belong in the Schools of Thought section) have a long real-world history and shared ideological and social tradition, 2) is still not widely accepted as an Anarchist school of thought by mainstream scholars, 3) is already in another section of the sidebar where its best connection to the rest of Anarchism, whether or not it actually is part of it, is discussed. It seems clear to me that the person who is arguing for its continued inclusion is doing so for purely ideological reasons (and I won't deny having the opposite ideological stance), and s/he has repeatedly refused or failed to provide sufficiently strong arguments as well as intentionally misrepresenting my arguments.

What should be the next step for a conclusive resolution as to whether or not this page belongs on this sidebar? I'm asking on this noticeboard because I think that "Anarcho-capitalism" is a fringe theory in regards to Anarchism. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

dispute resolution. They are usually pretty helpful. And my last piece of advice, is sign up as a registered user. It's not fair but sometimes IP's just don't get the level of respect that they deserve around here and in an argument between an IP and an experienced editor there is too often a prejudice in favor of registered editors. There are other more concrete advantages to signing up. If you have any more questions or concerns drop me a line either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your contributions, and again, welcome! -Ad Orientem (talk

) 01:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing something how this is that fringe, seeing as how it has a well-known academic behind it (Hans-Hermann Hoppe). Maybe its crackpot, but then, a cynic might say that of everything in economic theory. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a fringe issue, this is in the wrong section for this, try the politics noticeboard. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Some outside input may be helpful there.

jps (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory, as it has been thoroughly discredited by science. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory is quite a loaded term which is largely a perjorative term. Being concerned about the effects of MMR vaccination and also the effects of other vaccines, and their proliforation, vaccines such as Gardasil doesn't connote or imply any "conspiracy" or "theory". Controversy is the more neutral term. Probrooks (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Watseka Wonder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP on the edit warpath promising on the Talk page to correct "lazy knee-jerk skepticism about psychic phenomena". - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

) 09:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Athari

There's only 2 creeds in Sunni Islam

) 00:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, Athari is well cited, and you've already been reverted by myself and one other editor for deleting sourced sections here and here. You've also been up front that you declare all followers of the Salafi movement here and here - the movement is usually associated with the Athari creed. No mainstream Muslim scholars declare them "outside the fold of Islam" and coupled with your straight up deletion of sourced content, I'm getting the idea that you're consistently pushing an extreme POV across multiple Islam related articles: that anybody you disagree with is heretical or anti-traditional. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no encyclopedia entry for this subject its fringe, not notable. If no significant coverage has been given to the subject it shouldnt be on wikipedia. Misdemenor (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you counting on the people who check this board simply ignoring the diffs for what you deleted? The sources are clearly there: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah and Alam al-Kutub are professional publishing houses whose books are sold all over the Arabic speaking world. Suhaib Webb is a respected, moderate North American Muslim scholar. You're deleting reliable sources because the info isn't contained in another encyclopedia...are you even considering your edits before performing them? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I started this thread to discuss wheather Athari article should be allowed to stay on wikipedia. So unless you have any comments on that I suggest you take the other issues to relative talk pages Misdemenor (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just did leave by comments on that: you deleted reliable sources from both respected publishing houses and a respected American Muslim scholar. This is in addition to your POV pushing on articles related to Atharism, which is quite troubling. This is not only a repeated pattern of

forum shopping as you've jumped from user/admin talk page to talk page and noticeboard to noticeboard, pushing an extremist point of view that involves you declaring millions of Muslims at a time to be heretics or fringe against reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk

) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject has very low notability im sure you know that already. I simply told @Doug Weller: to revert my edit so how is that forum shopping? Also which other noticeboard have I brought this issue up? Are you simply making things up now? Misdemenor (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I was indeed asked my Misdemenor to restore his deletion. I replied " my problem with reverting myself is that not only do we have

Athari, which is sourced (eg[15]), there's a recent book on this discussed here.[16]". I don't know why Misdemenor hasn't mentioned these sources. These don't suggest it is fringe. Doug Weller talk

06:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”"[17] Doug Weller talk 08:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly why you wont find it in encyclopedic entries, "anti school-school". Its more of a movement then a school, it is against using human reason which is the basis of ash'ari and maturidi creeds. It might be better to merge it with

WP:NFRINGE Misdemenor (talk

) 02:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So should Athari be deleted or merged into another article? The impression you're giving is that you don't have a clear idea in your mind of what should be done with a supposed fringe view (which Athari isn't, but I'm playing the devil's advocate here).

Additionally, I don't think you've actually read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Fringe ideas are not deleted, nor must they be merged.

Also, Hanbalism isn't Atharism and vice versa. The overall picture I'm getting here, when coupled with you declaring millions of other Muslims at a time to be heretical non-Muslims, is that if you just don't like something, your inclination it to declare it blasphemy and try to wipe it off of the encyclopedia (re: your deletion of reliable sources on multiple occasions). I don't think this discussion was started in good faith. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I brought this issue here for editor opinion on the matter if I had wanted to delete it I would of proposed that at afd. I would like other editor opinion seeing that you have shown considerable bias in my previous encounters with you. You have implied that the majority of sunnis are deviants but i dont want to get into this here. Well the question is whether Athari is notable enough to have its own article ,I dont believe it has extensive references like the other creeds. Sources such as Cambridge mentions Hanbalism in place of Athari [22] This source explains indepth that Athari is incorporated within Hanbalism, "The Shaf'i, Hanafi and Maliki madhabs were law schools only with no corresponding theologies. As such, each school played host to different theologial trends. While there are exceptions, the Shafi'i and Maliki schools tended to attract traditionalism and its opposite Ash'arism, and the Hanafi tended to attract Mu'tazilism or Maturidism. Thus, one would often find a traditionalist Shafi'i and an Ash'arite-Shafi'i, both agreeing on legal methodology, but quarreling vociferously over fundamental matters of theology. Hanablism being both a law and theological school generally avoided such factionalism"-p.229. [23] *note this source is used on the Athari article in violation of

WP:SNYTH. It seems other users have brought up the issue here [24] Misdemenor (talk

) 06:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@

Talk:Athari before too long. Eperoton (talk

) 03:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Athari can be termed an extreme form of Hanbalism(literal textualism) per Hanbali

Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi's critique labelling it anthropomorphism. Athari's proponents are mainly those part of the Salafi movements. Mainstream(tradtional) Sunnis accept Hanbalism, but not extreme versions of it being dubbed "Atharism". Passage on Athari anthropomorphism "Furthermore, the assertion that, as Ibn Taymiyyah stated, "Allah truly uttered it" (i.e., the Qur'an) only reiterates once again the basis for alleged Athari anthropomorphic tendencies (even if the assertions are ostensibly amodal), because it appears to ascribe to God an uttering facitility (e.g., a mouth)" [25] Misdemenor (talk

) 08:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Halverson seems to hold that Athari is the original and predominant theological position of Hanbalis, also shared by some Shafi'is. I've exerpted some relevant passages from his book and a couple of other sources in

Talk:Athari. I suggest we continue this discussion there. Eperoton (talk

) 14:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Abolitionism (bioethics)

Abolitionism (bioethics) is up for AFD, and there was a call to action on Facebook which has resulted in the predictable. Anyone else think they can explain Wikipedia sourcing rules to advocates, would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessarily condescending. People, at least in their view, have read over the rules and genuinely disagree with you on the AfD. That doesn't mean you just need to "explain" the rules to convince them your position is correct. But yes, the canvassing was unfortunate. Empamazing (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) strike comment by now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Some have, most clearly haven't, or haven't bothered bringing any evidence they have. Look at the edit records of most of the people saying "keep!" without a reason - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No doubt individuals have all sorts of weird or idiosyncratic views. But to dismiss an entire bioethical tradition, ranging from the religious and utopian ("May all that hath life be delivered from suffering" - Gautama Buddha) to the scientific - or purportedly scientific - is too quick. None of this is to say that the existing entry can't be substantially improved. --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be dismissing the little-supported neologism, which seems to be used only by ... you - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There's already an article on this subject. It's called Suffering. The article in the OP is just so unbelievably vague as to be useless as an article. I'm not saying the information within is useless, but it should be mentioned in the article I linked, not given its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

David, if I were either to write, or contribute to, the entry, then I promise it would be (very) different. My point here wasn't to defend a linguistic usage - or the quality of the existing entry - but rather to query whether abolitionist bioethics - feel free to substitute whatever term you judge most apt - deserves to be placed under "fringe theories". Suffering? I wish the long-term goal of its abolition were always treated as axiomatic - in which case I'd agree with you. Sadly this isn't the case. --Davidcpearce (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in stating that I don't think anyone believes the goal of eliminating suffering in any given field is fringe. It's pretty much by definition the mainstream approach to medicine, technology, charity, art, etc, etc. I think the issue is that the current article reads like an article about a fringe theory, and it's extremely difficult to write an article about a subject so vague as "eliminating suffering in [insert field here]" that doesn't read like a fringe theory. Especially because it's associated with transhumanism, which is a fringe subject (note that 'fringe' is not a derogatory term, but a descriptive one). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Faced with the choice of investing time, effort and energy working on an entry that needs improving and opting for "delete", the latter option is almost always going to be easier. I just worry that sometimes it's too easy...--Davidcpearce (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's serious discussion in philosophy of abolitionism in bioethics by that name that's not by you, it would be quite apposite to list it in the AFD even if you felt you shouldn't add it to the article yourself - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And Davidcpearce has just been caught in blatant meatpuppetry with added gratuitous personal attack. Lovely - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Caught"? David, like you I write under my own name: this is not a case for Sherlock Holmes. Sadly, I know we disagree on many things and will continue to do so - presumably both on and off Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs)

Christopher Busby, 7/7 Ripple Effect

• Christopher Busby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 7/7 Ripple Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk
  ) 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  The removals at the Busby article were clearly POV pushing. I've re-inserted them. I'll look into this IP's other edits later. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  That was my impression from skimming the removed sources. Thanks! --

  talk) 16:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  Even with citations, some parts of the article on Busby makes me wonder about the statistical numbers used in the article. "more than a million people have died between 1986 and 2004 as a direct result of Chernobyl.", "he referred to calculations made with his colleagues estimating that Chernobyl had killed 1,400,000 people", Are there really no sources commenting on the methods used in determining that number? The number is larger than the population of some European countries, and I find hard to believe that Busby would be the only one to notice that kind of increase in cancer deaths. Dimadick (talk